1999 Supreme(Del) 699

High Court Of Delhi
SHARAD YADAV - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 325 of 1997
Decided On : 09/06/1999

Headnote:Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-A & 120-B — Criminal conspiracy — Agreement between the accused persons on a particular course of conduct is an essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy — Charge framed without such ingredient is not proper.

       Held:

       Section 120-A IPC defines conspiracy as an agreement to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means. An agreement will amount to a statutory conspiracy only if carrying it out will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of an offence by one or more of the parties to the conspiracy. For purposes of analysis it is perhaps convenient to isolate the three Clauses each of which must be taken as indicating an essential ingredient of the offence as follows:-

       i) If a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued,

       ii) which will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement,

       iii) if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions.

       Thus, the essential ingredient in the crime of conspiring to commit a specific offence or offences is that the accused should agree that a course of conduct be pursued which he knows must involve the commission by one or more of the parties to the agreement of that offence or offences. But, beyond the mere fact of agreement, the necessary means read of the crime is established if it is shown that the accused, when he entered into the agreement, intended to play some part in the agreed course of conduct in furtherance of the criminal purpose which the agreed course of conduct was intended to achieve.

       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(d) — Acceptance of illegal gratification — Allegation against a political leader of acceptance of an amount towards bribe — Admission of accused accepting receipt of money as political donation — No allegation of criminal conspiracy or criminal intent proved — Order framing the charge set aside.

       The prosecution cannot selectively use only those parts of a confession which most obviously prejudice the accused. There can be no "editing" of exculpatory passages that detract from those parts.

       The gravamen of the charge against Shri Sharad Yadav is that he received Rs. 5 lacks from Jain brothers as illegal gratification. It is pertinent to mention that there is no proof of the payment of the said amount to Shri Sharad Yadav or why it was paid, aliunde in the case. The question that falls for consideration is whether Shri Sharad Yadav admitted having received any amount as bribe from Jain brothers. It needs to be highlighted that in both the interviews, Shri Sharad Yadav has nowhere stated that he had received any amount from Jain brothers or from J.K. Jain, towards bribe. He had simply admitted having received a sum of Rs. 3 lacs from one join as donation to the party fund. In both the interviews he had stated that he did not know who that join was and he had come Along with Chimmanbhai Patel. Editing the said statements of Shri Sharad Yadav so as to exclude the reference to receipt of Rs. 3 lacs as donation to the party fund from one Jain whom he did not know would utterly distort the true sense of both the statements. In view of the dicta of the privy council and the Supreme Court, no inference of a criminal intention in receiving the amount of Rs. 3 lacs by Shri Sharad Yadav as donation to the party fund can arise. In the case of Om Prakash (supra), their lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down that unless there be a planery admission of guilt, the facts must be interpreted reasonably and an admission of all the facts which, constitute the offence should be present. Tested on the touchstone of the principles of law enunciated by their lordships of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court, the aforesaid video recorded interviews of Shri Sharad Yadav do not amount to confessions and cannot, thereforee, be used to complete the offence, with which Shri Sharad Yadav was charged.

       Eliminating the aforesaid interviews of Shri Sharad Yadav, there remains nothing on record to connect Shri Sharad Yadav with the alleged crime. It has to be borne in mind that a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale where one is free to give flight to ones imagination and phantasy. I am, thereforee, of opinion that the impugned order directing to frame charges under Section 120-B, IPC read with Sections 7, 11, 12,13(2) & 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Shri Sharad Yadav in the present case on its facts, cannot be sustained.